Volition in Violation of Copyright

D. Nimmer
{"title":"Volition in Violation of Copyright","authors":"D. Nimmer","doi":"10.7916/JLA.V43I1.4124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many recent copyright infringement cases have focused on the question of volition. As contentious as the matter has become in current copyright doctrine, the issue is relatively new. From the passage of the first Copyright Act in 1790 forward, U.S. copyright cases devoted no discussion to the issue. Two centuries later, however, the advent of the Internet raised this issue, among so many others. \nNothing is totally new under the sun. As far back as enactment of the 1976 Act, concern was expressed lest telephone companies be ensnared in liability, to the extent that their facilities were used in the retransmission of cable signals. Congress adopted the “passive carrier” exemption, releasing from liability those “whose activities with respect to the secondary transmission consist solely of providing wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of others.” That provision was necessary as telephone companies risked liability in its absence. Nobody at the time raised lack of “volition” as even a theoretical defense to that imputation. Decades later, with the advent of the Internet and online services, those same considerations multiplied along with the explosion of new ways to use “wires, cables, or other communications channels.” \nThis Article began as the 32d Annual Horace S. Manges Lecture, delivered at Columbia Law School on April 1, 2019.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/JLA.V43I1.4124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many recent copyright infringement cases have focused on the question of volition. As contentious as the matter has become in current copyright doctrine, the issue is relatively new. From the passage of the first Copyright Act in 1790 forward, U.S. copyright cases devoted no discussion to the issue. Two centuries later, however, the advent of the Internet raised this issue, among so many others. Nothing is totally new under the sun. As far back as enactment of the 1976 Act, concern was expressed lest telephone companies be ensnared in liability, to the extent that their facilities were used in the retransmission of cable signals. Congress adopted the “passive carrier” exemption, releasing from liability those “whose activities with respect to the secondary transmission consist solely of providing wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of others.” That provision was necessary as telephone companies risked liability in its absence. Nobody at the time raised lack of “volition” as even a theoretical defense to that imputation. Decades later, with the advent of the Internet and online services, those same considerations multiplied along with the explosion of new ways to use “wires, cables, or other communications channels.” This Article began as the 32d Annual Horace S. Manges Lecture, delivered at Columbia Law School on April 1, 2019.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
侵犯版权的意志
最近的许多版权侵权案件都集中在意志问题上。尽管这一问题在当前的版权原则中引起了争议,但这是一个相对较新的问题。自1790年第一部《版权法》通过以来,美国的版权案件就没有对这一问题进行过讨论。然而,两个世纪后,互联网的出现提出了这个问题,以及其他许多问题。天下无新事。早在1976年法案颁布时,人们就表示担心电话公司因其设施被用于电缆信号的重新传输而陷入责任。国会通过了“被动载波”豁免,免除了那些“与二次传输有关的活动仅包括为他人提供电线、电缆或其他通信渠道”的人的责任。这项规定是必要的,因为电话公司在没有这项规定的情况下可能承担责任。当时没有人提出缺乏“意志”作为对这种指责的理论辩护。几十年后,随着互联网和在线服务的出现,这些同样的考虑随着使用“电线、电缆或其他通信渠道”的新方式的爆炸式增长而成倍增加。本文开始于2019年4月1日在哥伦比亚大学法学院举行的第32届贺拉斯·s·曼格斯年度讲座。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Covers and Front Matter Covers and Front Matter Full Issue Full Issue Covers and Front Matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1